Can Anglicans be Catholic?

For those pondering this question you might like to watch these lectures by former Anglican and now Catholic Priest Rev. Dr. John Fleming who tackles the relationship between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church. Starting with the harmonising ecclesiology as typically held by communion-minded Anglicans, Fr. Fleming outlines the influence of Venerable John Henry (Cardinal) Newman, the Oxford Movement, and his own spiritual and intellectual development.

I got this from the website of the Church of St. Mary and The Angels, Hollywood's Historic "Little Church Around The Corner", which has recently voted to join the American Ordinariate when it is set up.

Church of England in 'sham marriage' crackdown

Pixilated policeman in bridal handcuffs arrangement!

The BBC is reporting the agreement between the Church of England and the UK Border Agency in their combined attempt to reduce the number of "sham marriages". Of course, it all depends on what is defined as a sham marriage. This is basically aimed at non-Europeans, as we are being told. I take it that the term "European" means a Rumpuy-Pumpuy type of European and not a Ukrainian or a Serb, for example.

In this matter I feel there is a difference between a sham marriage and a bogus one. Sham marriages occur on a regular basis. Many saying their vows without meaning them. In the Roman Catholic understanding, a deliberate attitude of negativity can lead to grounds for annulment. However sham they may at the outset, most are consummated. Bogus marriages on the other hand are mostly not. It is a purely financial and status acquiring business. Most brides would shudder at the thought of intimacy with some of the grooms on offer. A lot of the grooms seem totally out of place next to their nervous brides. Bogus is bogus and sham is something else.

The difficulty for clergy is that they know only a tiny minority of their parishioners. However, they are in the legal position of caring for all souls. So it is relatively easy for a smooth-talking stranger to say that his niece is in need of a marriage to be performed fairly quickly. How is a priest to gainsay it all? Probably by reading up on the new guidelines.

The practice of bogus marriages is not uncommon. There is a big trade in it, as with all aspects of people trafficking. I suspect though, that this is not being applied fairly. It would appear that Africans are more likely to get caught than Asians. Surely that would not be right. What about marriages of convenience by people from the Sub-continent? Maybe I'm being too jumpy. But the track record in these things is to use a sticking plaster on the easy bits and turn a blind eye to the more complicated.

Damian Thompson, the Catholic bishops and a revolting building

Catholic tastes?

Damian Thompson is the blogs editor of the Daily Telegraph. I read his religious affairs blog. Very good it is. Mr.Thompson has a down on the Catholic bishops. In fact, it could be said he's near to revolt on occasions. They apparently are near to revolt over the Ordinariate, yet profess blind obedience to the Pope and his initiative. There are revolts going on all over. Some of the comments on his pages are quite revolting, from those Roman Catholics who seem to despise Anglicans in the Catholic Church. Then there are revolting comments from those within the Church of England who are sniffers-out of all things papal. Damian says he has no time for the the "Hinge and Bracket" Anglo-Catholics. Neither have the liberal-minded members of Affirming Catholicism, who affirm almost everything the Pope does not. The Anglican Bishop of Truro has no clue as to what Anglican Patrimony is. The Pope apparently does. But the Catholic bishops don't. Damian Thompson does and seems to find it better than the Roman Patrimony, if I may put it that way.

Now there is on offer a church that does indeed have an ugly look about it. This is being touted as a suitable place for converting Anglicans to worship. I detect more revolts. Even the building might turn on itself. If the inside is anything like the outside, then an Anglican High Mass would seem very muted in there. Is that the idea? It would appear that the Church of England is huffy about the Ordinariate as much as the Catholic bishops. We've heard all manner of threats about leaving, not using buildings and such.

Christian charity is short on the ground right now between many. Feelings are running high. But surely we should all take a back step, a deep breath and ask ourselves "Are we being nice to each other? Is this what Christ expects of us?"

Queen opens Henry VIII's General Synod

Last night I was surfing the net, looking at information on the activities in General Synod. One site I was looking at had the C of E logo in the corner. My son came in and saw the words "Church of England" emblazoned across the screen. "Oh, Church of England!", he said, with a knowing tone in his voice. "That's not God's Church". I was taken aback a bit by this enthusiastic piece of information, but also rather intrigued. "Who's church is it?" I enquired. "Oh, no", he said, "it's Henry VIII's church". For a moment I didn't know what to say. Then thought that maybe his lessons at school were taking him on a very interesting path. He's learning about Henry VIII but I wonder if he's being given the unvarnished truth. Most people think this in one way or another. It seems that the secular education authorities just perpetuate the same old myths and teach them as gospel.

Henry may have had his beef with the Pope but he certainly was no factional sect builder. He maintained his beliefs in the Catholic Faith going so far as to instigate laws to defend it against protestant reformers who scared him as much as his mother-in-laws. I can't see folklore religion being a proper subject for the National Curriculum.

When the Queen opened the General Synod she mentioned the hard tasks before the members. She does this as Supreme Governor, but she hasn't got a church in her name. The general fuzzy thought process for most in England is that the Church of England is not really anything other that a protestant organisation that does some good things. I think it was best summed up in a remark by a British Army officer in the Balkans, when he was discussing how the Army was helping the Muslims of Bosnia. "Well, of course, they're not proper Muslims you know. They're sort of C of E Muslims". Not that there could be any Muslims of this kind, but it neatly illustrates what the Archbishop of Canterbury is up against. A vague understanding that somehow the Church of England is wishy-washy and not "proper". In 1986 the Episcopal Church had an advertisement which promoted the canard. Looks and sounds jokey but just shows up the familiar error.

So my son may have a point. Not that it's not God's church, but that those within it don't always profess the Faith in a coherent manner. Most Anglicans I meet have no desire to have any spiritual depth. This is not to slight them. They just prefer a religion that is undemanding in the literal sense. That is, not too many questions.

I just query whether children in primary schools should get a proper version of Henry VIII or get the popular version of him.

Anglican Catholics sitting on a wall?

Currently it's all a bit of a heady atmosphere for Anglican Catholics and it's not just a fine incense smell they're in. Some may accuse us of sitting on a wall like Humpty Dumpty making words mean what we want them to mean. Others may think the wall is really a fence. Even more may think it really is time to jump down on one side or the other.

I'd rather like to think we can all get along with those three pillars - Faith, Hope and Charity. I read Damian Thompson's blog and I also read some of the comments. Many are from people who have lost sight of all three pillars it seems. Damian is plumping for the Ordinariate because he wants us in the Roman fold to show errant priests "how it's really done!". A good old Anglican Mass with all the trimmings and one that RCs can go to. WOW! But he should be more charitable to those who are still thinking or want something slightly different. All Anglican Catholics want to profess the catholic faith. The trouble is that our present divisions can lead to acrimony and hurtful words. Charity is one pillar we should all being reflecting on.

Currently, if one wants to be an Anglican Catholic, there are a few ways to be one.

A. Be in the Anglican Use Rite - Not many and only in America - In communion with Rome.
B. Be in the Anglican Catholic Church - More of them; currently reject the Ordinariate - Not in communion with Rome or Canterbury.
C. Be in the Traditional Anglican Communion - Most now wanting the Ordinariate but not all - Currently not in communion with Rome or Canterbury.
D. Be in an Ordinariate - Some will when they are set up - In communion with Rome.
E. Remain in the Church of England within a structure such as The Mission Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda, accepting impaired communion and may or may not join one of the other options in future.
F. Accept doctrinal changes within Anglicanism and be in a grouping like Affirming Catholicism.

The last one is probably not acceptable to the vast majority of Anglican Catholics. The one thing the present pope has done is to accept and honour the concept of Anglican Catholic patrimony. Sadly we are disunited but our fears and foibles should be measured with a degree of charity. The Archbishop of York said of the last synod meeting that it lack Christian charity. Very sad, but there are those that want to promote the battering ram technique of persuasion over anything else.

I think the formation of The Mission Society of St Wilfrid and St Hilda is more of a help than a hindrance. People should not feel they are being bounced into the Ordinariate or being bounced anywhere. Discernment is what it is all about - and prayerful thought, too!

BNP "Vicar" is no Holy Man!

I do wish the BNP, the media and anyone else who thinks as such would refrain from calling Mr.Robert West a "vicar". He is definitely not a priest in the Church of England. He is not a clerk in holy orders. All he is is a self-styled itinerant preacher following his own version of the Christian Faith.

Most people in England have no idea what a vicar is or does. That's because the likes of The Sun use "vicar" in much the same way as they do "tragic tot", "terrorist", "beast" or "victim". Mr.West is very much a civil Christian in his public utterances. He panders to those who never set foot in church, yet who somehow believe they live in a protestant wonderland where a divine creator has given them complete control to command the lives of others.

The BNP has no vicar with a megaphone shouting the odds. It has a man in a clerical collar whipping up the political debate with falsehoods and fantasies. A vicar is a priest who has a parish where the stipend (salary) was historically mainly derived from lesser tithes. A rector, on the other hand, was a priest who received both the greater and lesser tithes. A rector therefore could be assumed to be better off than a vicar, but a vicar was definitely better off than a perpetual curate, who got no tithes but was given a small stipend from the diocese.

The term vicar has become a loose expression for a priest in the Established Church. In the folk pysche of English society, a priest is only to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. I was once asked by a cradle Anglican, a woman who attended church regularly, but who had all the hallmarks of a C of E background, "Is your uncle a priest or vicar?". "He's both", I replied, without further comment. She looked at me blankly, wondering how on earth such a thing could be possible.

The Church of England may be pleading with people not to vote for the BNP, but I somehow think that the dearth of any real understanding, any proper appreciation of the Faith in the mass of the population, is partly down to ineffectual leadership by the hierachy of the C of E. The BNP can call on the English people with some vague gospel of mumbo-jumbo religious rhetoric and it has an ability to stir latent protestant sentiments. Nothing too deep, no real spiritual basis, just a primeaval approach to the problems that beset people in their daily lives.

The Church of England is always put down as the religion of those who don't tick the box for anything else. "I'm C of E, I suppose" is the reply you often hear. It is this mass of unbaptised, non-churchgoing people that the media includes in their headcount of Anglican adherents. However, to be a Christian one has to be baptised. By all means, we should encourage those with a desire to explore faith and to embrace those who have no faith. My point is about the vast bulk of secular Britons who are no longer part of the Established Church but who claim a Christian heritage based on myths, fables and folklore. It is this group of souls that the BNP is exploiting.

Archbishop of Canterbury in goalpost moving exercise

The Archbishop of Canterbury has gone to Rome. Not over to Rome. Just a short visit to speak his mind. However, it seems to me his mind is tortuously flexible these days. He spoke at length when giving an address in Rome, as the guest of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The address was part of a symposium being held at the Gregorian University, to celebrate the centenary of the birth of Cardinal Willebrands, the first president of the Council. Much of the address contained reference to women's ordination in relation to traditional catholic understanding.

The Archbishop's prose is sometimes heaving going on the reader, but the gist of his argument is that local churches without the whole catholic church can makes "local decisions" without deviating in any mammoth way from core beliefs. This is a bit like stretching rubber to see when it will break. He also suggests now that female ministry is based on baptism and on vocation, as a measure of equality. It all smacks a bit of changing the ingredients in a well-established recipe because some people think the recipe makes a bad cake.

He says this, "All ordained ministers are ordained into the shared richness of the apostolic ministerial order – or perhaps we could say ministerial 'communion' yet again. None ministers as a solitary individual. Thus if the ministerial collective is understood strictly in terms of the ecclesiology we have been considering, as serving the goal of filial and communal holiness as the character of restored humanity, how much is that undermined if individuals within the ministerial communion are of different genders? Even if there remains uncertainty in the minds of some about the rightness of ordaining women, is there a way of recognising that somehow the corporate exercise of a Catholic and evangelical ministry remains intact even when there is dispute about the standing of female individuals?" (Use of the word gender instead of sex is telling). The implication is that only a few have uncertainty over ordaining women whereas the opposite is crystal clear. He also seeks to find a way of incorporating female ministers into some kind of nebulous collegiality without really addressing what he calls a "dispute about the standing of female individuals".

The goalposts are being moved and the players are being given to think that the new rules will have no affect on the play in the field. The Archbishop also asked that the Roman Catholic Church give an answer as to what exactly is wrong with what some "local churches" are doing. I'd say if he doesn't know now he never will.

In a nutshell, this address was a convoluted way of asking whether there was a possibility of putting the current impaired communion of Christians together in a quick-fix solution ignoring disputes and disagreements. We all know we have to heed the Dominical request that we "all be one". Rowan Williams' suggestions sound laudable but it would surely be at the expense of conscience and catholic (universal) tradition.

Secular world wants control of the Church

It isn't enough for the secular world to distance itself from the Church. It wants to control it through a mixture of legalisms and diatribes. St Mary The Virgin Parish Church in St Mary’s Road, Swanley, Kent is a well-known Anglo-Catholic church. It professes the unchanged Faith in a changing and changeable world. A rumpus has erupted in the town because the local branch of the Royal British Legion, having appointed a female cleric as their chaplain, were miffed that they could not hold a service within the church. St.Mary's does not recognise the validity of women in priest's orders. This, as the diocese confirms, is "the legal position and is well-documented".

Looking for an alternative venue, the local town council stepped in to allow the Legion to hold their service in a banqueting suite. Mutterings were heard. The council leader Councillor Robert Woodbridge said, “My view is we now live in the 21st century and things have changed. But they will point out there are things in the bible which says women should not be priests, but it’s a matter for the church.” It is this detached view of Christendom that allows such people as Harriet Harman to pursue her so-called Equalities Bill. Councillor Woodbridge may feel times change, and they do. But the Christian Faith does not change. What was heard and understood by the Disciples is heard and understood today and will be in centuries to come.

People may want to use the church as some kind of social club and take precious little interest in the doctrines. Fair do's. But they must surely see that they do themselves no good by being rude, condescending or simply dismissive in an ignorant fashion.

Key to Anglican distress

The Revision Committee of the Church of England (overseeing the introduction of women bishops) has just given a snub to traditionalists by not giving any safeguards to protect their beliefs. Maybe this was a change of mind due to the Pope's recent intervention in the matter. It pleases the zealots of the winner-takes-all variety. They want a church without compromise to their heady mixture of secular notions and equality measures. One such person at the forefront of this bandwagon with bullbars on it is Christina Rees. She is a long-time proponent of browbeating her opponents into eventual submission. A lot of what she says is tempered with un-Christian sentiment and a desire to promote wordly ideas over the sacred.

She is chair of a group called Women and the Church and she says that the plans show the Church is committed to equal treatment. "This is wonderful news. It's a major breakthrough as it expresses the view that men and women are equal in the sight of God. I'm glad that we have not ended up with a political compromise and the committee has instead ceded to the will of the people." The implied barb is that those who do not agree with her do not see that men and women are equal in the sight of God. Of course, that is baloney, but her insidious detractions hold sway in the prevailing world. What is lost on her is that orthodox Christianity has never understood that men and women are "equal" in this world. They have complementary states of being for living out God's purpose. One without the other diminishes humanity. However, a crude equalisation of human beings is something traditional Christians cannot accept as being part of the Catholic Faith.

Many Anglican catholics are viewed at best as a mildly eccentric group and at worst as a unsavoury cuckoo in a very precise and politically correct nest. In my own family, my catholic beliefs within Anglicanism are seen as difficult to comprehend. Most prefer a religious adherence that never questions, never sets boundaries, but has the glow of a feelgood factor. Low on the doctrine, high on the octane. And please believe me when I say I don't mean this in a nasty way. They have said as much themselves.

Robert Key is a Conservative MP. In matters of religion, though, he is anything but conservative. More like a radical with a rapier. He is a man with little sympathy for pain of the consciences of dedicated priests. He wants no truck with safeguards or episcopal oversight. It's a love it or lump it arrangement. When this measure gets to the House of Commons, some odd alliances will come to the fore. Key has no desire for compromise or compassion. Pity!

With the Pope's provision for an Anglican enclave in the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic Anglicans are caught between going or staying. If we go, we may find the journey longer than we thought. If one reads Damian Thompson's blog or Ruth Gledhill's it is full of Catholics (RC's that is) deriding Anglican orders, verbally abusing the concept of "Anglo-Catholics" (they put the inverted commas round anything catholic to highlight differences). There are those, like Damian, who see this new Anglican Rite as a great thing. If we stay, we may get our PEV's removed and a female prelate demanding the legal right to officiate at a service. This happened in the USA when women bishops, Jane Dixon in particular, tried to enter churches where they were not accepted as sacramentally valid.

The answer to the distress is really simple. Anglicanism has always been a via media. Now it's turning into via one way. I'm not about to say women cannot be bishops if that's their belief. The position currently is that we have impaired communion. Anglicans are either in or out of communion with each other. Some have left the Anglican Communion altogether. It is far better to be together with mutual respect than not.

I suspect many will stay. If we get to the stage where a woman bishop is determined to enter a church formerly under the oversight of a PEV, then life will be hard. Maybe she might call the police in. Who knows? We've been here before when priests were put in jail for contravening a law that impinged on catholic practices and belief. It may happen again. But not if faith, hope and charity have a deciding part in future developments.

Pope and Queen to have beano at Buck House!

The Queen has invited the Pope to stay at Buckingham Palace when he comes to visit next year. She will be able to tell him how "appalled" she is with the state of the Church of England. The Daily Telegraph reports that the Catholic Herald thinks she also has "an affinity with the Holy Father, who is of her generation". They will have a lot to discuss. As Supreme Governor and Defender of the Faith it must be particularly galling when you have to sit back and watch some of the antics and complete disregard for the doctrines traditionally held.

In fact, her role now is more akin to the previous chief executives of Woolworths mulling over the Pick 'N Mix counters. If it carries on much longer she will have a state funeral carried out by a transgendered cleric clutching at straws and rabbits' feet!

Now she has dispensed with the likely lads and ladies of the synod, she can move gently across the tea and cakes and whisper, "More tea, Pope?".

Peter Tatchell won't repent!

Peter Tatchell is quite within his rights to live as he wishes. He is quite allowed to campaign for gay rights. But the doctrines of the Church are not his to change. He rather obtusely suggests that "Homophobia is a social and moral evil, just like racism. Bigotry, even in the guise of religion, has no place in a compassionate, caring society. I call on the Bishop to repent his homophobia. His prejudice goes against Christ’s gospel of love and compassion." As with a lot of what Tatchell says, there is a grain of truth mixed with a whole load of rubbish. The Christian Gospel is concerned with upholding the Faith. That Faith has only two states for the human condition with regard to sexual activity. Celibacy or matrimony. The sacrament of matrimony does not cover "same-sex unions" as such a situation would negate the spiritual meaning of the sacrament.

Peter Tatchell may accuse the Bishop of Rochester of being a bigot, a homophobe or whatever. All the bishop is doing is restating gospel truths. "There will come a time when they who kill you think they do God's will". For killing here the meaning is more about the soul.

The Anglican Church has allowed a trojan horse of libertine theology to come into its midst. Those who rail against traditionalists do so with a sad proportion of bile and invective. I suppose we will have to live with it. Being a Christian is never easy and, in this modern world where passing fads and fancies are placed on the altar as some alternative truth, it will continue to be a trial.

The Queen is Defender of the Faith and that in itself is likely to be far more onerous for her to bear than for any previous monarch. For all his faults, Henry VIII did acknowledge the Catholic Faith and went so far as to write a defence, hence the title. Her Majesty has let it be known that she "understands the concerns" of the traditionalists. She could do no more. If the trojan horse gets any bigger there may be no faith to defend!

Catholic kings and protestant people?

The English are neither protestant or catholic. What suits the average Englishman is a very fluid relationship with God. Some have it so fluid as to forget He's there! Most would not like to talk about religion, be questioned about it or to give any in depth interview about it. It's a private matter and that's that.

Currently most English people give the Established Church a wide berth. Even the latest innovations like female clergy, tambourine-type services and a revised liturgy have failed to attract the unchurched in their masses. In essence, the English are in a state of secular serenity tolerating the eccentricities of the Anglican hierachy and are bemused by constitutional niceties.

So, as the Prime minister galivants around the globe, getting lessons in white blue-eyed banking from the Brazilian president (has he any cure for cloth-eared syndrome?), we are given a parliamentary debate on the successon of the monarchy.

Now we all know that Roman Catholics can't marry the monarch. But it isn't as sweetly simple as all that. If Evan Harris succeeds with his bill, does it just stop at marriage. How about raising the children of such a marriage as Roman Catholics? Can a Roman Catholic swear to uphold the "Protestant Religion" which is what the Coronation Oath requires? The answer is probably no. This is just about marriage. So the monarch is not allowed to be a Roman Catholic. It is perfectly lawful to be an Anglican Papalist professing catholic doctrine and attending mass regularly, although it would need to be a particularly Anglican approach to defending "protestantism" at the coronation. Prince Charles has professed a few varied understandings of the Faith, from use of the Prayer Book to being defender of faith. That could mean his own version. I have heard he is not opposed to incense, rather like his aunt Margaret. His mother is not taken with it. Would he be censured for having catholic tendencies rather than papal obedience? It is a problematic minefield, for sure.

So this bill does not end discrimination for the monarch, just the spouse. Odd kind of logic!

Evan Harris is all about equality. His bill talks about "gender" when he actually means sex. The sex of the person in line matters. Females cannot queue jump at the moment. But is this a matter of the system being hereditary as it is or being that the first born gets the title? It could be that those who were born second or third may feel they could be a better heir to the throne.

Personally, I think it best to leave well alone. There is no public clamouring for this change, and even if it were changed according to this bill, the monarch still ends up as a protestant and the younger siblings still get the booby prizes!

Synodical censorship?

The General Synod of the Church of England has voted to ban clergy and immediate employees from being members of the British National Party. It was overwhelmingly passed by 322 votes to 13, with 20 abstentions. One member, in my opinion, valiantly stood up to this high-minded righteousness but to no avail. The Church ploughed on into the realms of political debate, thereby giving the BNP ample ammunition to use on the door steps. There's none so...

The Church should have stood by its existing policy of saying that the BNP did not represent a valid expression of the gospel. That it was inappropriate for Christians to agree with or promote such policies. That would have been fine. Instead, they up the ante by going head to head on an issue, free speech and democratic legitimacy, for which they will come off the worse.

The BNP are very good at manipulating the situation, and wow, dear clerics, they already have. I see from their website that they have 56 diggs on the latest posting. Sometimes I wonder at the suitability of the General Synod to grasp reality. I doubt if they will think about yesterday when the BNP do well in the Euro Elections. I fear for this country, because instead of debating and trying to win with a superior argument, we resort to bans and an affectation of lofty disdain.

The Archbishop of York said, referring to the fact that he was a member of the Baganda tribe, "As a Christian, I joined another tribe, it is the tribe of Jesus Christ, and in that tribe all are welcome." Well, I can say that at my church, we have people from quite a few tribes, some not a stone's throw from his. We all get along very well and I would like to think we could without worrying about the BNP. If we need to we can speak our minds. However, censorship and bans will only make our efforts that much harder. I doubt if many of those voting for this ban have come into contact with BNP supporters and members.

The way to deal with such opponents is rather like Lord Boothby did on meeting Hitler. The Fuehrer raised his arm and declared, "Heil Hitler!". Whereupon Boothby responded in similar fashion with "Heil Boothby!".

The Anglican Catholic "thing" and the Woman Bishop "thing"!

I love the way some Anglicans talk about each other. The BBC is monitoring the women bishop "thing". I say that because a certain Mr.Jim Cheeseman, a member of the General Synod who opposes the plans for women bishops, says, "I think a lot of people who are in the Anglican Catholic "thing" have thought about Rome and decided they are Anglicans." That is about right. I have thought about it, but it doesn't mean I want all the other "things".

It will take a bit more thought to work it all out satisfactorily, but one "thing" I don't want is for a female prelate to come banging on the door upsetting us all. There are some very nice people on both sides of the belief divide. What we need is some kind of well-built bridge rather than a hotheaded bunch of eccliastical navvies digging deeper for a parting of the ways.

Vicar vicariously dismisses the Crucifix!

Sometimes the Church of England amazes in ways it probably shouldn't. In Horsham, Sussex, a vicar has found that the crucifix outside his church was 'unsuitable' and 'a horrifying depiction of pain and suffering'. He says, "It wasn't a suitable image for the outside of a church wanting to welcome worshippers. In fact, it was a real put-off. We're all about hope, encouragement and the joy of the Christian faith. We want to communicate good news, not bad news, so we need a more uplifting and inspiring symbol than execution on a cross."

Quite what goes in place of this symbol I do not know. It is all rather sad, because this cosy rosy version of the Faith is just like icing with no cake. I suppose this vicar, had he been around at the time of the crucifixion, would have been offering the Virgin Mary and the Disciples tea and sympathy well away from the gory scene.

Without the suffering there is no hope. It's a topsy-turvey rollercoaster, this new way, that's for sure.

Theologically a catholic?

The Sunday Telegraph is reporting that there are mutterings and murmerings on the Labour benches about disestablishment. This is in response to a vague aside by the Archbishop of Canterbury that it was “by no means the end of the world if the Establishment disappears”. No it wouldn't be, but as a previous Archbishop of York (Dr Habgood) commented, it is like unravelling auntie's jumper. Once started it won't end!

The usual suspects have come out of the New Labour closet. Alun Michael, David Cairns (former RC priest) and Peter Kilfoyle. There are not many in the Labour Party now who appreciate or understand the Church of England.

My advice to them is to leave well alone. It may all seem a bit odd to them, but I don't see many Roman Catholic women queueing up to be Queen Consort. Even though this is a shambolically religious country, the English seem quite happy today to keep their clerics at arms length (or further, if possible), but have it all as some kind of heavenly insurance policy (paid pro bono!) should the need arise. I'm relaxed with that, but New Labour isn't.

The Church has been linked to the state since 1534, when King Henry VIII broke from Rome in order to get an annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could marry Anne Boleyn. Henry, although theologically a Catholic, took the position of Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment and was excommunicated by Pope Paul III. Henry did his utmost to keep out of England all manner of continental calvinist thinking. He failed in part with that.

Today I was at Mass. Henry may well have liked it, bar the prayers for Pope Benedict! The Church of England contains many a cross-section. It is perfectly and legally possible for the heir to the throne to marry an Anglo-Papalist, or any other person who is "theologically a Catholic", so long as they are not in communion with Rome. Cardinal Newman was said to have remained at heart an Anglican. Henry remained at heart a Catholic.

This is all lost on New Labour. They see the icing on the cake is a bit thin, but they never bother much about the cake itself. If they start attacking the fabric of the Church, not only will we lose much, but others will suddenly reflect on its impact on their own lives. My bet is it won't be happening any day soon.

"Give us the money!" Church demands

I have always thought the Church of England is a law unto itself. When Henry VIII decided that the Pope wasn't listening hard enough, he took it upon himself to do two things. Firstly, reorganise the cashflow and second to imprint his understanding of the Catholic Faith on people. With the latter, he caused so much upset, that his desire to put a stop to such things as monks selling sheep's blood as the actual Blood of Christ to poor ignorant peasants was severely overshadowed. His puny son saw to it that the Church was riddled with protestant sycophants. So it is that both catholics and protestants have sat, uneasily at times, side-by-side in the State Church.

On the financial side, Henry ransacked the monasteries for cash. He also came up with the idea that wealthy landowners should pay for the upkeep of their local churches. Now wizzbang into the 21st century and we find Coventry diocese digging deep into old glebe laws. Ho-ho, they go. We've got a likely candidate for paying off our debts and keeping the church in order. Not far from me is the village of Aston Cantlow. Here Gail and Andrew Wallbank have a house which also has glebe land. Now the law has caught up with them. The law in question dates back to medieval times, when the parishioners had a duty to repair the nave - the part of a church in which the congregation sits to worship - while the rector had a responsibility to repair the chancel end. A rector would pay for his share of the repairs using income from land attached to his rectory - 'glebe land' - as well as from tithes. After the dissolution of the monasteries, that land was dispersed but never separated. Hence the Coventry coffers are rattling. The clue for me was the farm being called Glebe Farm. However....

What I find rather detestable here is that people professing to be Christians are hellbent in obtaining money from people who haven't got it. The churchwarden says, "Oh, they've got the money". How does she know? Very nicely put, I'm sure! Then on top of her remarks comes Canon Mervyn Roberts, director of communications for the Coventry diocese. He says, 'Once I took on responsibility for a church, I saw another world of pain - that of the church wardens who aren't paid a penny for what they do, but carry the weight of responsibility. I've had it through the neck with people who ask, "How can the Church of England do this to this poor couple?", and I feel like saying, "Look, there are no winners."' No winners indeed!!

For those who don't know, the Coventry diocese is very liberal in its understanding of the Faith. So it comes as no surprise to me to see liberals behaving so illiberally.

The law lords have had their say. The Wallbanks must now find the money. Selling Glebe Farm at its true market value (which in 2007 was estimated at £2million) in order to raise it is not an option as long as the chancel repairs liability remains, since any purchaser would (understandably) be unwilling to take on such an open-ended commitment.

As the canon says, "No winners". What a world!

Anglican priest in gay tattoo hullabaloo!

The Guardian reports that a "vicar" is possibly facing disciplinary action for saying gay men should have "sodomy" warnings tattooed on their bodies. Apparently the cleric thought it amusing to publish remarks on his blog, which have since been removed, denouncing homosexuality.

It is one thing to be against the sexual practices of homosexuals (as opposed to the person) and quite another to have a warped sense of humour likely to cause distress. The Rector (not a vicar!) of St Michael's, Cornhill & Chaplain to the Stock Exchange said, "Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan sodomy can seriously damage your health and their chins with fellatio kills."

It has caused outrage and Outrage said, "It's the kind of remark you might expect from a drunk on a Saturday night, not someone in a supposedly responsible position." Drunk or not, I can't understand why people don't think before they speak (or write, in this case).

Perhaps we should have tattoos on people's faces? "Remind me to think before I open my mouth" might be one message!

BBC gets its vicars in a twist!

I knew the BBC had long left the realms of those who knew about church life. To the average BBC reporter a cleric is a vicar - regardless! Unless of course he's a bishop or has been disclosed as a Roman Catholic, in which case he's a priest.

According to the BBC a "Vicar's anger over road tax rise" is reported as "A vicar has hit out at plans to raise car tax ....." and goes on to describe Rev. Peter Cook as the "vicar at the Hanham Baptist Church in Bristol". Umm!

In another story the BBC tells us of a couple who had their marriage blessed on a wing of a plane by a dare-devil vicar. He was in fact the Reverend George Brigham, of Wrose Methodist Church, Shipley. The Anglican clergyman who conducted the proper marriage on terra firma was in actual fact a rector of his church.

I know I'm being a tad pedantic, but the serious point here is that it all goes to show that a secular press reports in a secular way about things they have little knowledge about. In that, times have indeed changed.

Will Walsingham fall foul of the new order?

Following the vote in General Synod, it seems the intention of the liberals in the Church of England is to sweep aside the Act of Synod which gave us Episcopal Oversight and to "force" traditionalists to accept women bishops. There appears little comfort for the views of Archbishop Carey, who signalled that there were two integrities of value. Without a legal framework, the traditionalists could be subject to the courts under the discrimination laws.

A test case could be dynamite for church/state relations. It may be based on a female prelate bringing a lawsuit against an incumbent and his PCC, or it could be a female cleric claiming sexual bias over an application to a parish vacancy. Either one could set a dangerous precedence.

What of Walsingham, that great shrine in Norfolk? The administrators state that -

Membership of the Association is open to all priests who are permitted to minister sacramentally at the Shrine: those of the Anglican Communion who are in good standing with their Bishop and episcopally ordained priests of Churches with whom the Anglican Communion is in full communion. The Guardians maintain the discipline of reserving sacramental ministry in the Shrine to male priests ordained by a male bishop. When necessary the Superior General of the Association (the Priest Administrator of the Shrine) will rule on admission to the Association, and in extreme circumstances may withdraw membership of the Association.

Could the administrators find themselves before the courts on charges of discrimination under the secular law? I think it a real possibility. After all, those who hissed at the Synod would not think twice about setting a lawsuit into motion!

And what of the Roman Catholic Church in England, and the Orthodox? Could they find themselves equally in the dock defending core beliefs against a strident opponent? It is not unlikely, I think, especially if a legal precedence has been set.

The Archbishop of Canterbury should endeavour to find a reasoned, thoughful, but above all godly way out of this tragedy.